Culinary Arts
Two-Year Associate in Applied Science (AAS) Degree : Assessment
2019-2020 Annual Assessment Report for Hospitality Department
Associate in Applied Science Programs
- Culinary Arts
- Event Management
- Hotel and Restaurant Management
Bachelor of Business Administration Programs
- Culinary Arts Management
- Event Management
- Hotel and Restaurant Management
Culinary Arts AAS | ||
---|---|---|
UNIT OUTCOME Outcome 1.1: PLO 1 - Financial & Quantitative Operations |
||
Unit Outcome PLO 1: Financial & Quantitative Operations – Students will be able to apply and analyze financial and quantitative operations. Cycle of Assessment 2019-20 |
Action Plan |
Update to Prior Year Action Plan |
UNIT OUTCOME Outcome 1.4: PLO 4: Effective Communication |
||
Unit Outcome PLO 4: Effective Communication – Students will be able to employ effective communication and critical thinking skills. Cycle of Assessment 2019-20 |
Action Plan |
Update to Prior Year Action Plan |
UNIT OUTCOME Outcome 2.1: Opportunities for student involvement |
||
Unit Outcome The Hospitality Department will offer opportunities for student involvement in industry specific clubs and student organizations. Cycle of Assessment 2019-20 |
Action Plan |
Update to Prior Year Action Plan |
UNIT OUTCOME Outcome 2.2: Student participation in professional competitions |
||
Unit Outcome The Hospitality Department will offer opportunities for student participation in professional competitions. Cycle of Assessment 2019-20 |
Action Plan |
Update to Prior Year Action Plan |
UNIT OUTCOME Outcome 2.3: Service Learning designated courses |
||
Unit Outcome Students will participate in Service Learning designated courses. Cycle of Assessment 2019-20 |
Action Plan |
Update to Prior Year Action Plan |
UNIT OUTCOME Outcome 2.4: Collaborate with industry stakeholders |
||
Unit Outcome The hospitality department will collaborate with industry stakeholders to enhance classroom learning. Cycle of Assessment 2019-20 |
Action Plan |
Update to Prior Year Action Plan |
MEASURES, BENCHMARKS, & RESULTS Measure 1.1.1: HOSP 130 – Midterm Exam |
||
Assessment Method/Measure HOSP 130 – Midterm Exam – food costing form. Introduced/Reinforced Level |
Course Assessment ONLY - Number of Students Completing Assignment (n) 61.00 Course Assessment ONLY - % Exceeding Standard 52.00 Course Assessment ONLY - % Meeting Standard 13.00 Course Assessment ONLY - % Approaching Standard 7.00 Course Assessment ONLY - % Not Meeting Standard 28.00 Non Course Assessment ONLY - Assessment Results |
Course & Non Course Assessment Results Response Results Breakdown: Exceeding (92-100): 32 students (out of 61) = 52.5% Meeting (80-91): 8 students (out of 61) = 13.1% Approaching (70-79): 4 students (out of 61) = 6.6% Not Meeting (0-69): 17 students (out of 61) = 27.8% Our benchmark was 90% of students would earn a 90 or higher; our results show that 34 students (out of 61) received a 90 or higher, or 55.7% of the set. Clearly we did not meet the benchmark. This set represented three sections of HOSP 130, one of which was the four hour section. It would be interesting to separate out the results of that section to compare to the larger set. This benchmark was set based on last year's aggregated data which did show excellent results. The benchmark needs to be re-evaluated to better reflect realistic results in the face of ever-changing academic skill sets. There is potential to reach a revised benchmark; but we need to analyze the midterms to determine which area of the food cost form presented the biggest challenge for students in order to create a more well-informed action plan pertaining to this assessment measure. We suspect that a big part of the large number of students not meeting or approaching the 80-mark is a result of these students not completing homework assignments, thereby preventing them from being able to correct mistakes and gain confidence with this math. |
MEASURES, BENCHMARKS, & RESULTS Measure 1.1.2: CULN 180 – Recipe costing and comparison |
||
Assessment Method/Measure CULN 180 – Recipe costing of selected menu items and comparison to actual menu pricing. |
Course Assessment ONLY - Number of Students Completing Assignment (n) 11.00 Course Assessment ONLY - % Exceeding Standard 55.00 Course Assessment ONLY - % Meeting Standard 0.00 Course Assessment ONLY - % Approaching Standard Course Assessment ONLY - % Not Meeting Standard 45.00 Non Course Assessment ONLY - Assessment Results In this case, students were assessed on whether or not they correctly completed the recipe costing assignment. Six out of eleven of them correctly completed the assignment while five out of eleven did not (which includes one that failed to turn in the assignment). Faculty use consistent approaches and tools across the curriculum to reinforce HOSP 130 recipe costing standards; however there are still students that struggle to find success. Further analysis of the completed assignments is necessary to determine any common mistakes/errors among submissions. In this instance, we were not successful in meeting the benchmark (80% of students would correctly complete the recipe costing); we only hit 55%. We will continue to monitor this outcome for ways to increase success. |
Course & Non Course Assessment Results Response |
MEASURES, BENCHMARKS, & RESULTS Measure 1.4.1: BKNG 280 - Poster Project to advertise two bakeshop items. |
||
Assessment Method/Measure BKNG 280 - Students will complete a poster project to advertise two bakeshop items. |
Course Assessment ONLY - Number of Students Completing Assignment (n) 7.00 Course Assessment ONLY - % Exceeding Standard 29.00 Course Assessment ONLY - % Meeting Standard 57.00 Course Assessment ONLY - % Approaching Standard Course Assessment ONLY - % Not Meeting Standard 14.00 Non Course Assessment ONLY - Assessment Results |
Course & Non Course Assessment Results Response Some changes had to be made to the plan. The original plan had HOSP 100 scheduled for assessment; this course doesn't run in the Spring. At the January 2020 Assessment Day, the department decided to change the course to BKNG 280. The original plan included an advertising poster assignment. However, this also changed once the campus closed and shifted to an online learning environment. Instead, students were asked to participate in online discussions pertaining to marketing in the baking industry. The results show data from one such discussion prompt. The original benchmark was that 100% of students would earn an 80 or higher on the assignment. In this case, we did not meet the benchmark. However, if the one student who did not complete the assignment was removed from the data, 100% of students would be meeting/exceeding (85 or higher). This, again, brings into question what to do with incomplete or missing assignments. |
MEASURES, BENCHMARKS, & RESULTS Measure1.4.2: HOSP 350 – Industry Professional Interview Project |
||
Assessment Method/Measure HOSP 350 – Industry Professional Interview Project. |
Course Assessment ONLY - Number of Students Completing Assignment (n) 21.00 Course Assessment ONLY - % Exceeding Standard 33.00 Course Assessment ONLY - % Meeting Standard 43.00 Course Assessment ONLY - % Approaching Standard 14.00 Course Assessment ONLY - % Not Meeting Standard 10.00 Non Course Assessment ONLY - Assessment Results |
Course & Non Course Assessment Results Response 76% of students were meeting or exceeding, which is 85 or higher. We did not reach the stated benchmark of 80% of students earning a 90 or higher on the assignment. Here again, we need to realign the benchmark with our assessment levels to make it easier to evaluate. |
MEASURES, BENCHMARKS, & RESULTS Measure 2.1.1: Activity level of clubs |
||
Assessment Method/Measure Activity level of clubs as measured by the number a type of events offered. |
Course Assessment ONLY - Number of Students Completing Assignment (n) Course Assessment ONLY - % Exceeding Standard Course Assessment ONLY - % Meeting Standard Course Assessment ONLY - % Approaching Standard Course Assessment ONLY - % Not Meeting Standard Non Course Assessment ONLY - Assessment Results The Hospitality department runs six student clubs and organizations: Meeting Professionals International, International Food Service Executives Association, Hotel Management Society, Escoffier Club, Patissier Club and Club Managers Association of America. This measure looks at the activity level of our department clubs by simply calculating the total number of events/activities hosted throughout the academic year. Events/activities were defined as meetings, social events, trips, fundraising activities, and community service events. To track data, club advisors and student presidents were surveyed and BroncoCONNECT was consulted. The data was aggregated to present the final totals:
|
Course & Non Course Assessment Results Response The benchmark was that each club would hold at least 10 events per academic year. Only three out of six of our clubs reached that benchmark, we are only halfway to the benchmark. This could be for several reasons:
|
MEASURES, BENCHMARKS, & RESULTS Measure 2.1.2: Number of community service hours |
||
Assessment Method/Measure Number of community service hours completed. |
Course Assessment ONLY - Number of Students Completing Assignment (n) Course Assessment ONLY - % Exceeding Standard Course Assessment ONLY - % Meeting Standard Course Assessment ONLY - % Approaching Standard Course Assessment ONLY - % Not Meeting Standard Non Course Assessment ONLY - Assessment Results The Hospitality department runs six student clubs and organizations: Meeting Professionals International, International Food Service Executives Association, Hotel Management Society, Escoffier Club, Patissier Club and Club Managers Association of America. This measure looks at the number of community service hours completed by members of these clubs (as a grand total). To track data, club advisors and student presidents were surveyed and O'Connor Center for Community Engagement was consulted. The data was aggregated to present the final totals:
Grand Total: 100 |
Course & Non Course Assessment Results Response The benchmark was that the department clubs would complete at least 50 hours of community service in total over the course of the academic year. Although we met and exceeded the benchmark; several items of discussion surfaced as a result of this process. 1. The definition of community service needs clearer guidelines 2. Hours may be under-represented or not reported 3. When reporting, students may not be attributing community service hours to the club/organization, therefore they are not logged for the club total through OCCE. 4. This measure does not account for hours of community service completed through classes. 5. We need a better tracking mechanism. |
MEASURES, BENCHMARKS, & RESULTS Measure 2.2.1: Number of awards won at competitions |
||
Assessment Method/Measure Number of awards won at competitions (both team and individual). |
Course Assessment ONLY - Number of Students Completing Assignment (n) Course Assessment ONLY - % Exceeding Standard Course Assessment ONLY - % Meeting Standard Course Assessment ONLY - % Approaching Standard Course Assessment ONLY - % Not Meeting Standard Non Course Assessment ONLY - Assessment Results Over the 2019-2020 academic year, SUNY Delhi students earned 10 competition awards, including 9 individual awards (8 ACF, 1 Chaine) and 1 team award (Gingerbread Team) |
Course & Non Course Assessment Results Response Given the benchmark of 5 medals, we doubled that. This number will fluctuate from year to year given the following variables:
|
MEASURES, BENCHMARKS, & RESULTS Measure 2.2.2: Student participation |
||
Assessment Method/Measure Student participation in/interest level (participation in teams/enrollment in course). |
Course Assessment ONLY - Number of Students Completing Assignment (n) Course Assessment ONLY - % Exceeding Standard Course Assessment ONLY - % Meeting Standard Course Assessment ONLY - % Approaching Standard Course Assessment ONLY - % Not Meeting Standard Non Course Assessment ONLY - Assessment Results 13 students in the past academic year participated in professional competition opportunities (actually competed). |
Course & Non Course Assessment Results Response We did not reach the stated benchmark, "At least 20 students will participate in professional competition opportunities." However, it should be noted that:
28 students demonstrated interest, but only 13 students participated. This is due, in part, to the fact that there are a limited number of spots available for the teams; additionally, none of the five students on the hot food team got to participate in a competition because it was canceled. "Participation" should be clearly defined to determine if it is measuring interest or completion. |
MEASURES, BENCHMARKS, & RESULTS Measure 2.3.1: Number of students with SL course designations |
||
Assessment Method/Measure Number of students who complete course offered with SL designation. |
Course Assessment ONLY - Number of Students Completing Assignment (n) Course Assessment ONLY - % Exceeding Standard Course Assessment ONLY - % Meeting Standard Course Assessment ONLY - % Approaching Standard Course Assessment ONLY - % Not Meeting Standard Non Course Assessment ONLY - Assessment Results Based on a review of enrollment from the 2019-2020 academic year, 40 students completed courses with an SL (Service Learning) designation. |
Course & Non Course Assessment Results Response The benchmark stated that every student would complete at least one course with SL designation. Theoretically, our program requirements would meet this benchmark because each degree option (Culinary Arts, Event Management, and Hotel and Restaurant Management) all included at least one required course that had been designated as SL.
However, only three courses in the fall 2019 semester had SL attribution: HOSP 220, HOSP 330, and REST 280 and there were no courses in the spring 2020 semester that had the SL attribution (when searched using BroncoWeb). This is strange because several courses have SL designation for the spring 2019 semester that do not have it in the spring 2020 semester. Further investigation needed. Additionally, there are several courses that may be eligible for SL designation but have not yet completed the process. |
MEASURES, BENCHMARKS, & RESULTS Measure 2.3.2: Student reaction to SL experience |
||
Assessment Method/Measure Student reaction to SL experience. |
Course Assessment ONLY - Number of Students Completing Assignment (n) Course Assessment ONLY - % Exceeding Standard Course Assessment ONLY - % Meeting Standard Course Assessment ONLY - % Approaching Standard Course Assessment ONLY - % Not Meeting Standard Non Course Assessment ONLY - Assessment Results We failed to gather this data. |
Course & Non Course Assessment Results Response With no data to evaluate, the benchmark was not met. |
MEASURES, BENCHMARKS, & RESULTS Measure 2.4.1: Number of guest speakers |
||
Assessment Method/Measure Number of guest speakers per year in the academic program. |
Course Assessment ONLY - Number of Students Completing Assignment (n) Course Assessment ONLY - % Exceeding Standard Course Assessment ONLY - % Meeting Standard Course Assessment ONLY - % Approaching Standard Course Assessment ONLY - % Not Meeting Standard Non Course Assessment ONLY - Assessment Results Data collected reflects the following results per program area:
|
Course & Non Course Assessment Results Response The benchmark was that each program area would host at least five guest speakers in an academic year. We did not meet this benchmark as only one of our three program areas reported at least five guest speakers. Results may be skewed due to inaccurate or lack of reporting as well as missed opportunities for guest speakers due to Covid19. Additionally, some of the guest speakers served all three program areas, so they were counted in each area. Improvements to data tracking methods and a concerted effort to include more guest speakers would help improve numbers. |
MEASURES, BENCHMARKS, & RESULTS Measure 2.4.2: Number of field trips |
||
Assessment Method/Measure Number of field trips per year in the academic program. |
Course Assessment ONLY - Number of Students Completing Assignment (n) Course Assessment ONLY - % Exceeding Standard Course Assessment ONLY - % Meeting Standard Course Assessment ONLY - % Approaching Standard Course Assessment ONLY - % Not Meeting Standard Non Course Assessment ONLY - Assessment Results Data collection revealed the following results per program area:
|
Course & Non Course Assessment Results Response The benchmark stated that each program area would host at least three field trip opportunities in an academic year. We did not meet this benchmark as only one of our three program areas reported at least three field trips. Results may be skewed due to inaccurate or lack of reporting as well as missed opportunities for field trips due to Covid19. At least one planned, but canceled, field trip was reported. Improvements to data tracking methods and a concerted effort to include more field trips would help improve numbers. |
MEASURES, BENCHMARKS, & RESULTS Measure 2.4.3: Student response to activities |
||
Assessment Method/Measure Student response to value added course activities. |
Course Assessment ONLY - Number of Students Completing Assignment (n) Course Assessment ONLY - % Exceeding Standard Course Assessment ONLY - % Meeting Standard Course Assessment ONLY - % Approaching Standard Course Assessment ONLY - % Not Meeting Standard Non Course Assessment ONLY - Assessment Results We failed to gather this data. |
Course & Non Course Assessment Results Response With no data to evaluate, the benchmark was not met. |
Year One: 2020
Graduation Rate: 46%
Job Placement Rate: 67%
ACF Certification Rate: 2%
Year Two: 2021
Graduation Rate: 51%
Job Placement Rate: 84%
ACF Certification Rate: 0%